Dataset Information

Reporting the methods used in public health research and practice.

ABSTRACT: The methods section of a scientific article often receives the most scrutiny from journal editors, peer reviewers, and skeptical readers because it allows them to judge the validity of the results. The methods section also facilitates critical interpretation of study activities, explains how the study avoided or corrected for bias, details how the data support the answer to the study question, justifies generalizing the findings to other populations, and facilitates comparison with past or future studies. In 2006, the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Programme began collecting and disseminating guidelines for reporting health research studies. In addition, guidelines for reporting public health investigations not classified as research have also been developed. However, regardless of the type of study or scientific report, the methods section should describe certain core elements: the study design; how participants were selected; the study setting; the period of interest; the variables and their definitions used for analysis; the procedures or instruments used to measure exposures, outcomes, and their association; and the analyses. Specific requirements for each study type should be consulted during the project planning phase and again when writing begins. We present requirements for reporting methods for public health activities, including outbreak investigations, public health surveillance programs, prevention and intervention program evaluations, research, surveys, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

SUBMITTER: Stroup DF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5798489 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting the methods used in public health research and practice.

Stroup Donna F DF Smith C Kay CK Truman Benedict I BI

Journal of public health and emergency 20171221

The methods section of a scientific article often receives the most scrutiny from journal editors, peer reviewers, and skeptical readers because it allows them to judge the validity of the results. The methods section also facilitates critical interpretation of study activities, explains how the study avoided or corrected for bias, details how the data support the answer to the study question, justifies generalizing the findings to other populations, and facilitates comparison with past or futur ...[more]

PMID: 29417955

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimSince 2011 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) has demonstrated per-injury average and population total medical and non-medical costs of injuries by type (such as unintentional cut/pierce) in the USA. This article describes the impact of data and methods changes in the newest version of WISQARS Cost of Injury.MethodsData sources and methods were compared for the legacy version of the WISQARS Cost of Injury website (available 2011-2021; most recent prior update was published in 2014 with 2010 injury incidence and costs) and the new version (published 2021; 2015-present injury incidence and costs). Cost data sources were updated for the new website and the basis for medical costs and non-fatal injury work loss costs changed from mathematical modelling (combined estimates from multiple data sources) in the legacy website to statistical modelling of actual injury-related medical and work loss financial transactions in the new website. Monetary valuation of non-medical costs for injury deaths changed from lost employment income and household work in the legacy website to value of statistical life. Quality of life loss costs were added for non-fatal injuries. Per-injury average medical and non-medical costs by injury type (mechanism and intent) and total population injury costs were compared for years 2010 (legacy website data) and 2020 (new website data) to illustrate the impact of data and methods changes on reported costs in the context of changed annual injury incidence.ResultsOwing to more comprehensive cost capture yielding higher per-injury average costs for most injury types-including those with high incidence in 2020 such as unintentional poisoning and unintentional falls-reported total US medical and non-medical injury costs were substantially higher in 2020 (US$4.6 trillion) compared with 2010 (US$693 billion) (both 2020 USD).Conclusions and relevanceNew data and methods increased the injury costs reported in WISQARS Cost of Injury. Researchers and public health professionals can use this information to proficiently communicate the burden of injuries and violence in terms of economic cost.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the extent and quality of patient involvement reporting in examples of current practice in health research.DesignMixed-methods study. We used a targeted search strategy across three cohorts to identify health research publications that reported patient involvement: original research articles published in 2019 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), articles listed in the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) database (2019), and articles citing the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public) reporting checklist for patient involvement or a critical appraisal guideline for user involvement. Publications were coded according to three coding schemes: 'phase of involvement', the GRIPP2-Short Form (GRIPP2-SF) reporting checklist and the critical appraisal guideline.Outcome measuresThe phase of the study in which patients were actively involved. For the BMJ sample, the proportion of publications that reported patient involvement. The quality of reporting based on the GRIPP2-SF reporting guideline. The quality of patient involvement based on the critical appraisal guideline. Quantitative and qualitative results are reported.ResultsWe included 86 publications that reported patient involvement. Patients were most frequently involved in study design (90% of publications, n=77), followed by study conduct (71%, n=61) and dissemination (42%, n=36). Reporting of patient involvement was often incomplete, for example, only 40% of publications (n=34) reported the aim of patient involvement. While the methods (57%, n=49) and results (59%, n=51) of involvement were reported more frequently, reporting was often unspecific and the influence of patients' input remained vague. Therefore, a systematic assessment of the quality and impact of patient involvement according to the critical appraisal guideline was not feasible across samples.ConclusionsAs patient involvement is increasingly seen as an integral part of the research process and requested by funding bodies, it is essential that researchers receive specific guidance on how to report patient involvement activities. Complete reporting builds the foundation for assessing the quality of patient involvement and its impact on research.

Project description:Methodologically sound mixed methods research can improve our understanding of health services by providing a more comprehensive picture of health services than either method can alone. This study describes the frequency of mixed methods in published health services research and compares the presence of methodological components indicative of rigorous approaches across mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative articles.All empirical articles (n = 1,651) published between 2003 and 2007 from four top-ranked health services journals.All mixed methods articles (n = 47) and random samples of qualitative and quantitative articles were evaluated to identify reporting of key components indicating rigor for each method, based on accepted standards for evaluating the quality of research reports (e.g., use of p-values in quantitative reports, description of context in qualitative reports, and integration in mixed method reports). We used chi-square tests to evaluate differences between article types for each component.Mixed methods articles comprised 2.85 percent (n = 47) of empirical articles, quantitative articles 90.98 percent (n = 1,502), and qualitative articles 6.18 percent (n = 102). There was a statistically significant difference (?(2) (1) = 12.20, p = .0005, Cramer's V = 0.09, odds ratio = 1.49 [95% confidence interval = 1,27, 1.74]) in the proportion of quantitative methodological components present in mixed methods compared to quantitative papers (21.94 versus 47.07 percent, respectively) but no statistically significant difference (?(2) (1) = 0.02, p = .89, Cramer's V = 0.01) in the proportion of qualitative methodological components in mixed methods compared to qualitative papers (21.34 versus 25.47 percent, respectively).Few published health services research articles use mixed methods. The frequency of key methodological components is variable. Suggestions are provided to increase the transparency of mixed methods studies and the presence of key methodological components in published reports.

Project description:IntroductionLittle is known about the accuracy of societal publications (e.g. press releases, internet postings or professional journals) that are based on scientific work. This study investigates a) inconsistencies between scientific peer-reviewed health services research (HSR) publications and non-scientific societal publications and b) replication of reporting inadequacies from these scientific publications to corresponding societal publications.MethodsA sample of HSR publications was drawn from 116 publications authored in 2016 by thirteen Dutch HSR institutions. Societal publications corresponding to scientific publications were identified through a systematic internet search. We conducted a qualitative, directed content analysis on societal publications derived from the scientific publications to assess both reporting inadequacies and determine inconsistencies. Descriptive frequencies were calculated for all variables. Odds ratios were used to investigate whether inconsistencies in societal publications were less likely when the first scientific author was involved.ResultsWe identified 43 scientific and 156 societal publications. 94 societal publications (60.3%), (associated with 32 scientific publications (74.4%)) contained messages that were inconsistent with the scientific work. We found reporting inadequacies in 22 scientific publications (51.2%). In 45 societal publications (28.9%), we found replications of these reporting inadequacies. The likelihood of inconsistencies between scientific and societal publications did not differ when the latter explicitly involved the first scientific author, (OR = 1.44, CI: 0.76-2.74); were published on the institute's or funder's website, (OR = 1.32, CI: 0.57-3.06); published with no involvement of a scientific author, (OR = 0.52, CI: 0.25-1.07).ConclusionTo improve societal publications, one should examine both the consistency with scientific research publications and ways to prevent replication of scientific reporting inadequacies. HSR institutions, funders, and scientific and societal publication platforms should invest in a supportive publication culture to further incentivise the responsible and skilled involvement of researchers in writing both scientific and societal publications.

Project description:Plain english summaryBackground Patient and public involvement means researchers working with members of the public, patients or carers to jointly plan and carry out research.Aim This article is written by members of three involvement groups, and the university employees that they work with. We wanted to jointly reflect on what enables our collaborative work, and what the challenges are for everyone involved.What we did and how we did it We wanted to establish what the literature defines as 'good' public involvement and compare this with processes and practices in our involvement groups. We therefore carried out a literature review and each group met separately to discuss what characterises good involvement, and what the challenges are. From these discussions we developed a set of descriptions about each group. We compared the literature review findings with what came out of the discussions within the involvement groups.Findings Some of the involvement principles from the literature were similar to the priorities of the involvement groups. In addition, the groups identified characteristics of 'good' involvement practice that were not reported in the literature: passion and enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. In this article we present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and difficulties we have experienced.AbstractBackground Patient and public involvement is important for producing relevant and accessible health research. Evidence of impact from involvement is growing, but there is also a need for research on how to create conditions for meaningful collaborations between researchers and public advisers.Objective We report on a co-produced self-reflective evaluation of involvement practices in three UK research programmes.Methods A structured review identified research-based principles for 'good' public involvement in research. In parallel, members of three involvement groups co-developed statements on how the groups work, and enablers and challenges to collaborative research. The author team analysed these statements using the findings from the review.Results We identified 11 international articles reporting research-based principles for involvement published between 2013 and 2017. We identified five 'values' and seven 'practice principles' for 'good' involvement. There was convergence between these principles and the priorities of the involvement groups. But the groups also identified additional good involvement practice that were not reported by the literature: passion, enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. We present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and highlight principles that have been challenging to implement.Conclusions Ongoing appraisal of public involvement is crucial. We present a process for self-evaluation, illuminate what 'good' means to researchers and public advisers involved in research, and identify areas for improvement. We conclude that provision of resources that enable support to public advisers in turn enable universities and research teams to implement other principles of good involvement.

Project description:BackgroundStructured, systematic methods to formulate consensus recommendations, such as the Delphi process or nominal group technique, among others, provide the opportunity to harness the knowledge of experts to support clinical decision making in areas of uncertainty. They are widely used in biomedical research, in particular where disease characteristics or resource limitations mean that high-quality evidence generation is difficult. However, poor reporting of methods used to reach a consensus - for example, not clearly explaining the definition of consensus, or not stating how consensus group panellists were selected - can potentially undermine confidence in this type of research and hinder reproducibility. Our objective is therefore to systematically develop a reporting guideline to help the biomedical research and clinical practice community describe the methods or techniques used to reach consensus in a complete, transparent, and consistent manner.MethodsThe ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) project will take place in five stages and follow the EQUATOR Network guidance for the development of reporting guidelines. In Stage 1, a multidisciplinary Steering Committee has been established to lead and coordinate the guideline development process. In Stage 2, a systematic literature review will identify evidence on the quality of the reporting of consensus methodology, to obtain potential items for a reporting checklist. In Stage 3, Delphi methodology will be used to reach consensus regarding the checklist items, first among the Steering Committee, and then among a broader Delphi panel comprising participants with a range of expertise, including patient representatives. In Stage 4, the reporting guideline will be finalised in a consensus meeting, along with the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document. In Stage 5, we plan to publish the reporting guideline and E&E document in open-access journals, supported by presentations at appropriate events. Dissemination of the reporting guideline, including a website linked to social media channels, is crucial for the document to be implemented in practice.DiscussionThe ACCORD reporting guideline will provide a set of minimum items that should be reported about methods used to achieve consensus, including approaches ranging from simple unstructured opinion gatherings to highly structured processes.

Dataset Information

Reporting the methods used in public health research and practice.

Publications

Reporting the methods used in public health research and practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets